Comments on: By their works shall ye know them… [Part 4]http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/2011/12/by-their-works-shall-ye-know-them-part-4/
Searching for the answers, passionate about the truthFri, 23 Aug 2013 09:30:42 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.22By: James Carlsonhttp://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/2011/12/by-their-works-shall-ye-know-them-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-9096
Sun, 08 Jan 2012 01:15:18 +0000http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/?p=1556#comment-9096The assertion attacked by Robert Hastings (James Carlson Gets It Wrong Again: Reuters Was NOT Paid to Publicize Robert Hastings’ Investigation of UFO Activity at F.E. Warren AFB in October 2010) in response to my work holds true. Robert Hastings paid to have his article distributed, just as we established in the forum at RU, days before he published his meaningless and incorrect assessment, here: http://www.realityuncovered.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=37341#p37341

“Absolutely, yes — that’s exactly what he did; he didn’t pay Reuters outright, however, just as Steve and Ryan have indicated. The distribution that included Reuters Newswire as the primary release manager, was handled by PR Newswire, United Business Media, which has been established on Hastings’ article (see Steve’s commentary above: http://www.prnewswire.com/).”

So, how did I “get it wrong again”?

Answer: I didn’t – again!

(Thanks to Stephen Broadbent for the original comments in response to Hastings’ inability to assess meaning within the english language, a failure that applies as well to his interview with Col. Meiwald, in which Meiwald insists that he knows nothing about a UFO at Oscar Flight — a denial that Hastings characterizes as a full confirmation of his and Salas’ depiction of that alleged incident; perhaps he should be more diligent in his gathering of information — he embarrases himself like this repeatedly by refusing to examine in full the evidence arrayed against him, a habit that indicates either his delusional outlook, his arrogant laziness, or his dishonest character — pick one; they all fit.)

]]>By: Tim Heberthttp://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/2011/12/by-their-works-shall-ye-know-them-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-9071
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 21:05:15 +0000http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/?p=1556#comment-9071Another interesting fact about Minot 1968, the initial reports from the missile wing filtered into the Wing Command Post. This would have been a “combined” command post supporting both missile and bomb wing (Similar to my experience at Grand Forks AFB). I have a working theory that most of the initial “sketchy” reports/facts were due to a bomb wing command post controller writing the initial reports that would have been up channeled eventually reaching the Blue Book team. Minot apparently did not have a UFO officer on site as did Malmstrom. This would support Fowler’s CUFON/NICAP write up with very suspect observations from those individuals who were out in the field, ie, poor missile terminology and protocols, not to mention unfamiliarity with an LF site security arrangement back in the late 1960s.

Tim

]]>By: James Carlsonhttp://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/2011/12/by-their-works-shall-ye-know-them-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-9070
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:32:40 +0000http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/?p=1556#comment-9070I think it certainly should be reevaluated, and your discussion at http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2011/12/interpersonal-transfer-of-experiences.html is most definitely an applicable resource for doing so. Your new essay in regard to the A-05 haunting kind of forces us to wonder why there’s such longevity with some accounts, and a sort of prominent dismissal with others. Personally, I think embarrassment might have something to do with it. People tend not to repeat stories that they know have nothing but emptiness behind them. Those stories that morph into legends with some staying power and long life are ultimately tales that have an essence of plausibility about them. That tends to come about, as I see it, when the originators of the stories generated communicate such tales with conviction. Conviction is a little hard to produce when the author is aware of the great “miscalcualtion” that he’s initiating or pressing forward. The result of this type of “birth”, I expect, would be exactly what we see here with Minot ’68: the story is carried forth by secondary sources such as Hyneck, et al, and pretty much forgotten by most of those in a position to know the falsity of the claims. No conviction with the actual originator, and no story in the originator’s environment — only in the environment of the secondary sources who took an unlikely story and ran with it towards nothing.
]]>By: Tim Heberthttp://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/2011/12/by-their-works-shall-ye-know-them-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-9069
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 18:42:44 +0000http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/?p=1556#comment-9069Minot 1968 was analyzed by Blue Book. Statements were taken by all who reportedly saw something. As far as I know, no careers were ruined because of this. In short, Minot’s 1968 sightings are/were well known by the public and the USAF. BTW, my sources that are very familiar with Minot’s history were not even aware that UFO’s were sighted around Minot…these individuals were assigned to Minot’s missile wing from 1970-1974. Only two years after the “event” and its memory was already flushed down the memory hole…go figure…supports my crew cognitive theory?

Tim

]]>By: James Carlsonhttp://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/2011/12/by-their-works-shall-ye-know-them-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-9068
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:08:02 +0000http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/?p=1556#comment-9068Minot 1968 is just more of the same. It’s pretty sad that DeVoid has to hearken back to 1968 in an article that begins “As we close out another year and hope for the best in 2012 …” Those guys are always looking backwards, because they lack the ability to establish anything definitive today. Have you heard about NASA’s invite to amateur astrologers in regard to searching the evidence related to the moon for possible indicators of alien life? Why did that proposal have to come from NASA? Why hasn’t anybody set up a simple cam network to search for evidence of UFOs? People with belief and very little else inevitably lack the will to examine their beliefs. Nobody wants to see God brought down to the level of petty philosophy and tawdry little dreams …
]]>By: Jack Sarfattihttp://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/2011/12/by-their-works-shall-ye-know-them-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-9066
Fri, 30 Dec 2011 03:48:18 +0000http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/?p=1556#comment-9066http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/12660/standing-up-to-the-past/
]]>